On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 21:55 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 18:51 -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > I would consider this a BAD thing. You are creating a derived work > > > out of GPL and non-GPL software. This actually will hurt the possible > > > acceptance > > > of the d80211 stack into the mainline kernel. > > > > On the contrary, I think this effort with spur interest in d80211, > > Atheros hardware and stimulate development of OpenHAL. It will also put > > additional pressure on Atheros to open HAL sources. > > HAL's are bad as well. You want a real driver, not one that has multiple > layers of indirection.
I think "dissolving" HAL once its open is much easier than porting the driver from one 802.11 stack to another. The former is just a matter of moving functions around, making some of them inline, renaming constants, fixing some ugly code. It's a set of simple operations, each of which keeps the driver functional. If anything breaks, it's easy to track back to the minor change that broke it. Porting to another 802.11 stack is a quantum leap that can only be done in one step and that could break lots of things at once. It could also reveal limitations of the new stack that need to be fixed. It's so commendable that somebody is trying to do the hardest part. > > The technical ability of d80211 to handle a popular chipset would hardly > > undermine its chances to be included into the kernel. It takes more > > that one step to achieve free in-kernel support for Atheros chipsets. > > DadWifi may be one of those steps, OpenHAL or open-sourcing the Atheros > > HAL would be the other. > > If Atheros does open source their existing driver. Someone will need to > do a new driver that gets rid of the HAL layer. Yes, but this can be evolutionary. Some code from HAL could actually migrate into the kernel or to a userspace utility. We still want country-specific limitations, at least by default, so that users don't break local regulations unknowingly. And even if the complete rewrite is needed, d80211 will be prepared to deal with Atheros cards, because the responsibilities of the firmware and the host software won't change. > > Should d80211 be merged with the existing 802.11 stack in the kernel, > > users of DadWifi would be among the testers, and they will ensure that > > useful features of d80211 are not lost. > > As a test or transition vehicle it is a DadWifi is good, but hopefully it > won't slow the progress to a real open source solution I think it may speed things up. Once the kernel integration is in sight, OpenHAL developers would have a stronger motivation to produce a working and copyright-clean product. > > Unless I'm missing something obvious, I don't see absolutely anything > > that could harm the chances of d80211 to make it to the mainline > > kernel. > > Christoph et. all will insist that everything be EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. That shouldn't be an issue at all. HAL does not and can not call any Linux functions directly. It can only communicate to the kernel through a wrapper that will be under GPL. Note that it's not circumvention of EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL. It's a direct consequence of the fact that HAL is indeed not derived from Linux. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
